Drugs & The Media: Relative vs. Absolute Risk
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- "A new pill lowers your risk of X by 50%!" Well, they're not lying to you... but they are withholding important information. Learn the difference between relative and absolute risk.
(Des sous-titres en français sont disponibles en cliquant sur l’engrenage)
The Body of Evidence: Medicine that tastes funny and science made easy. We don’t just make videos; we blog, we record a podcast, and we make public appearances here and there.
www.bodyofevide...
The Body of Evidence is part of a production collective that creates all kinds of cool stuff to turn you into a better critical thinker.
www.MoutonsNoMo...
captioning and translation by
viviane blais communications
www.vbcom.ca
Watching this after finding out about the RRR &ARR of covid vaccines 95-97% vs 0.7%!
THANK YOU!
Doing the exact same too
I loved this video very helpful, don't be deceived by the vaccines, here are some vaccine numbers from Lancet - July 1, 2021, Pfizer/BioNTech - Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%. Moderna - Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%. Johnson & Johnson - Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%. AstraZeneca/Oxford - Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%. Thanks for making this perfectly clear.
Negative. You don't understand what you think you understand.
@@DrReginaldFinleySrExpound Doc.
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness-the elephant
(not) in the room
Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca-Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna-NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
When talking about the yellow scale, I should have said "from 0 to 100", and not from "1 to 100". Minor mistake!
Yep, a common error I discuss with my students. Sadly, people will try to apply such principles to prevention.
Medical journals do this too, especially in the headlines.
I love your presentation style😎 easy to understand.
Excellent information!
Well done. Subscribed. I hope you get a 1000 soon, you have quality content.
Great work
Great simple explanation 👏
This is excellent, thanks for creating it. Will definitely share with students.
Great job
Good angle. But it leaves out what's behind the hysteria. Most network ad revenues come from pharma. Anchors are reading corporate lit and presenting it as journalism.
That's DOCTOR McLovin buddy.
Ah, the evil media. But you’re almost giving a pass to the drug makers who truly know all about ARR vs RRR, but choose to report only RRR.
It is so hard to get people to understand this basic principle. Use relative risk to sell you ... anything. On a product, in medicine and in science. What is the n value? Just show the y-axis that is the other trick. Compress the y-axis to make the comparison look huge.
Good video.
Thank you.
In what circumstances would Relative Risk be more appropriate than Absolute Risk?
The smoke did it for me. haha
Finally get it! Thanks :)
What you don't say is that the absolute risk is a very misguided number too because what is the standard population? What is the sample? Healthy individuals mixed with unhealthy ones, so if you sample from people at risk (I may be one and I don't know), then the absolute risk approaches more the relative risk. It's different if you have underlying conditions than if you don't. The absolute risk to develop COVID is significantly different from a young healthy individual than from an obese old one. So you have to consider what is the absolute risk for your profile.
That's a very critical point too! Yes.
You are exactly right. You can tell by some of the comments that the Covid deniers don't understand the distinction.